OPINION: The delayed introduction of Scotland’s ban on biodegradable waste in landfills is a helpful warning shot across the bow as England prepares for the same by 2028 – but will Defra take heed?
Findings from Defra’s 2023 consultation on the ban have been circulating for a few months now, but sadly, the report hasn’t yielded the clarity the industry needs. Yes, there’ll be a ban, but where will the lines of distinction be drawn? Will England have an AT4 compliance rule, as is the case in the Republic of Ireland and Scotland? Or will all biodegradable waste be banned completely? And what treatments and processes will be deemed suitable to keep landfills available? Perhaps more significantly, will we have enough alternative waste handling capacity to meet the 2028 change?
When anticipating England’s reality, it’s helpful to consider Scotland’s experience. The country has still not introduced the landfill ban despite promising it in 2020 and then in 2021. It’s now been pushed to the end of this year, with a lack of infrastructure cited as one of the main reasons for the delay.
This lack of certainty about timescales and poor infrastructural preparation has slowed the pace of change and uptake of alternatives in Scotland, making some wonder if it will happen at all. It’s also highlighted a significant disconnect between what policymakers say is possible and the time and investment needed to deliver it. Some may argue this breeds a lack of confidence, not to mention creates confusion. Defra must take heed. How can England’s waste industry plan long-term operational, logistical and financial changes in a vacuum? Details matter.
Lack of waste parity across the UK make the 2028 ban in England even more difficult to meet. For example, Cornwall has access to one EfW plant, Hampshire has three, but neighbouring Dorset has none. Banning biodegradable waste from landfills creates challenges of varying sizes depending on where in the country you are, and crucially, it will affect demand for and the cost of already limited EfW capacity. This will be even more challenging and costly in remote communities – waste has to go somewhere, so it will travel significant distances across county borders, or as exports, clogging up the roads and incurring hefty costs to boot.
While this situation crystallises the need for greater investment in future-proofed waste infrastructure – a widely acknowledged fact – we also know this isn’t a quick issue to solve. It reveals an urgent need for flexible, scalable, and localised solutions and action.
In the most practical terms, reducing reliance on traditional routes requires widespread capacity elsewhere, and ideally from several cost-effective and readily available alternatives. This is one reason we’re seeing so many waste handlers invest in new processing equipment and technologies to treat waste themselves onsite. They are taking matters into their own hands.
Biotechnology provides one solution. It stabilises non-recyclable waste, making it suitable for landfill (subject to AT4 testing), and cleans it so recyclable materials can be extracted more easily. The waste it processes can still go to EfW if necessary, but why would you, when it makes new and lucrative offtake routes accessible, such as Solid Recovered Fuel (SRF), which is significantly more cost-effective and carbon-effective than low-level incineration?
Once upon a time, waste innovation like this provided differentiation and advantage; now, it’s simply a means to survive. As the industry seeks cost reduction, financial certainty, and reliable offtake routes, it has no option but to harness new methods. However, while waste handlers try to anticipate what’s coming down the line, Defra must remember that the devil is in the details. More clarity, direction, and certainty are needed, and fast, if waste handlers are to protect their businesses and meet deadlines.
Subscribe for free